http://not.invisible.net/signals/ en-us Time To Organize @ ICANNwatch http://not.invisible.net/signals/bin/000291.shtml http://not.invisible.net/signals/bin/000290.shtml http://not.invisible.net/signals/bin/000289.shtml http://not.invisible.net/signals/bin/000288.shtml http://not.invisible.net/signals/bin/000287.shtml http://not.invisible.net/signals/bin/000286.shtml An ode to "The Little Blue Dot That Could." http://not.invisible.net/signals/bin/000292.shtml <a href="http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20020903" target="signal" class="scrape">Gentlemen, I called this meeting because we're feeling the effects of a diminished economy. We need a way to generate money so we can survive this slump...</a> http://not.invisible.net/signals/bin/000284.shtml http://not.invisible.net/signals/bin/000280.shtml <a href="http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1934" target="signals" class="scrape">Carl Malamud's perplexity over why the "technical due diligence" on the various bids to ICANN resulted in no actual followup makes an interesting read. It's a real shame that, as usual, insider strings and the money trail will likely decide even this small part of the domain system. It's really a shame to see internet pioneers being shut out of the future of the net without even the courtesy of a good reason. </a> http://not.invisible.net/signals/bin/000285.shtml <a href="http://slashdot.org/articles/02/08/31/2125221.shtml?tid=95">More About The .org Reassignment</a> http://not.invisible.net/signals/bin/000279.shtml <a href="http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=930&mode=&order=0&thold=0" target="signal" class="scrape">ICANN has published the .org bidders comments regarding the Preliminary Staff Report...here are some particularly interesting quotes from the comments submitted...</a> http://not.invisible.net/signals/bin/000278.shtml <a href="http://www.metafilter.com/comments.mefi/19617" class="scrape" target="signals">ICANN disses the the dot. The guy who runs the Internet Multicasting Service teamed up with the guy who runs the Internet Software Consortium and submitted a proposal to mange the .ORG registry. ICANN's conslutants [sic] dumped on the proposal claiming it is among the worst proposals from a technical standpoint. Mind you, ISC produces the software that runs the DNS and actually operates root and top-level servers. And ICANN thinks they lack the technical mojo? Wow! Are we all ready to admit that ICANN is completely corrupt and beyond saving?</a> http://not.invisible.net/signals/bin/000277.shtml "Formal" <a href="http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/ims-isc-29aug02.htm" target="signals" class="scrape">comments of "Internet Mail Service" and "Internet Mail Consortium" on .org Preliminary Evaluation Report</a> posted at ICANN site. http://not.invisible.net/signals/bin/000276.shtml Well ... we don't really know that Afilias is a well-established registry operator, do we? Do they meet their SLAs? Does their code conform with the EPP spec? How's internal performance? Are security procedures really in place?There are no public studies by reputable sources that have examined the technical performance of the Afilias registries and I certainly don't see any public facilities available that allow me to make that assessment.The paper trail stops. I can't do technical due diligence and it is pretty clear that nobody doing the .org evaluations did any due diligence. That may be appropriate for pitching a .com business plan or writing an OSI standard, but it isn't my understanding of how you run a public service on the Internet. http://not.invisible.net/signals/bin/000275.shtml